NORTHAMPTON — Residents fed up with the city’s stormwater fee are in the early stages of organizing a campaign against it, arguing the cost to residents should be viewed as a tax, not a fee.
“We feel this is a tax, it’s not a fee. We feel it’s unfair and unequally proportioned,” said John Riley, a leader of the group along with Fred Mackler. “We weren’t allowed to vote on this, and we’re going to question this legally, get it on the ballot and petition” the City Council to review and rewrite the ordinance.
The fee for one of the city’s four enterprise funds, instituted in 2014, ranges from $64 to $259 annually, depending on the size of property and how much runoff water it creates.
Riley lives on Turkey Hill Road and said he pays $250 for the stormwater utility. But according to Riley, the water from his property runs into the Manhan River, not into a Northampton stormwater treatment facility.
“People have a situation where they aren’t getting anything for the fee,” Riley said, referring to his own property.
According to Mayor David J. Narkewicz, the creation of the stormwater utility fee was a precursor to stricter stormwater regulations from the U.S. Environmental Protecton Agency.
The regulations were foreshadowed in 2014 when the Army Corps of Engineers visited the city to inspect dikes built in 1940. The organization found the dikes to be poorly maintained and mandated repairs and initiatives estimated to cost $1 million, Narkewicz said.
The city was compelled to spend more money, he said, leading to the creation of the stormwater fee in 2014.
This May, two years after the Northampton ordinance was passed, the Environmental Protecton Agency issued new stormwater guidelines which take effect July 1, 2017.
According to Narkewicz, the regulations require more advanced stormwater testing, monitoring, management programs and maintenance of storm sewers. The regulations make stormwater similar to other regulated utilities like solid waste, sewer and water, the mayor explained.
With these new requirements, the city needs a way to pay the bill.
“Here are a bunch of regulations that have a real monetary cost as to what it will take to comply and do all the testing and any other construction or measures that have to happen to comply,” Narkewicz said. “But the EPA is not giving us grant money to do it with.”
The city’s $106.2 million municipal budget combines a $89,946,013 general fund and four enterprise funds totaling $16,281,648 for water, sewer, stormwater and solid waste. The stormwater fund generates roughly $2 million.
Narkewicz said the creation of a stormwater utility fee was a “forward-thinking” move by the Department of Public Works and City Council. The groups knew costly stormwater regulations were on the horizon and passed the 2014 ordinance, he said.
“At the time, it was still something that was looming,” Narkewicz said.
However, one city councilor said he would be open to reviewing and improving the stormwater ordinance.
“The stormwater mechanism is an imperfect mechanism,” At-Large Councilor Ryan O’Donnell said Monday. “I believe that it is worthwhile to look at it and see where it could be improved. We should involve the community as we go forward because it is new.”
O’Donnell said every member of the council has heard from residents about the stormwater fee.
“I don’t want it to be just a cherry-picked process,” he said of any future review. “I want it to be driven in an open way with all kinds of community input.”
Because the city has a large amount of infrastructure that requires maintenance, including levees along the Connecticut and Mill rivers, O’Donnell said it would be fiscally irresponsible to “kick the can down the road” and delay or ignore necessary repairs.
“Hard decisions have to be made or else they get harder in the future,” O’Donnell said.
Anthony L. Patillo, a former building commissioner for the city, said he has offered his assistance to Riley and Mackler in their fight against the stormwater fee as it stands.
Patillo, who lives on Autumn Drive in Florence, said the stormwater ordinance is an example of the City Council violating the city charter and passing an ordinance without giving citizens due process.
“This whole issue of bringing forward an ordinance, it sets a really bad precedent for future generations,” Patillo said. “If they can do it for this, it can be done for other things. It is a matter of principle for me.”
Patillo added that the ordinance is reminiscent of the ill-fated Business Improvement District that was struck down by a judge in November 2014.
Patillo said he takes issue with the stormwater ordinance because it carries a different definition of impervious than the city’s zoning regulations, leading to unanticipated bills for residents. He said he hopes the ordinance will be rewritten so the definition of impervious surface matches the city’s zoning regulations. He also would like to see a flat rate for stormwater, referring to Westfield’s $20 annual fee for all residents.
“I understand the city needs this, but this is something historically paid with taxes and now we’re doing it with a fee,” Patillo said. “If it is a tax, the citizens should vote on that, and they didn’t have that opportunity.
“A lot of people aren’t clear as to what happened. We’re bringing that forward,” Patillo added.
Riley was quick to note he agrees that the city’s dikes should be maintained in case of a flood, but said he is unable to justify the high fees in the city, especially compared to neighboring communities.
“We don’t argue it is a good idea to maintain the dikes that protect Northampton in case of a flood. We see that as a good idea,” Riley said. “But these bills are piling up and we get nothing for them.”
The stormwater and flood-control fees are calculated on a four-tiered system that is based on the amount of impervious areas such as paving and buildings on a residential property. The fee for commercial, nonprofit and other large properties are calculated on an individual basis based on the impervious surface of the property.
According to Narkewicz, residents can reduce stormwater fees by creating more absorbent areas on their property. He suggested creating a stormwater garden like the system of rocks, grasses and plants that cuts through Pulaski Park downtown. Narkewicz also suggested creating a porous driveway with gravel to reduce runoff.
But to Riley, the fee assessment feels like “smoke and mirrors.” He calls for a lower, flat fee rather than a tiered system based on property size and absorbent surfaces.
“Why am I paying the most and getting nothing?” Riley asked.
He said his group intends to fight the fee by hiring a lawyer, creating a petition and drafting a ballot referendum for the next city election in 2017. The stormwater opposition group, made up of some 20 people, meets at Woodstar Cafe, at 60 Masonic St., early in the mornings, Riley said.
Further information is available on the Repeal the Northampton Storm Water Fee Facebook page or by emailing Riley at jdriley@comcast.net.
“We are a small contingent, and we’re starting to get more people,” Riley said. “We are kicking things off, we’re getting it started.”